Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography for assessing acetabular labral tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP were electronically searched to collect relevant studies on magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears from inception to September 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. RevMan 5.3, Meta Disc 1.4, and Stata SE 15.0 were used to investigate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance in patients with acetabular labral tears. RESULTS: A total of 29 articles were included, involving 1385 participants and 1367 hips. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio, pooled negative likelihood ratio, pooled diagnostic odds ratio, area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic, and Q* of MRI for diagnosing acetabular labral tears were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–0.80), 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68–0.80), 2.19 (95% CI, 1.76–2.73), 0.48 (95% CI, 0.36–0.65), 4.86 (95% CI, 3.44–6.86), 0.75, and 0.69, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio, pooled negative likelihood ratio, pooled diagnostic odds ratio, area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic, and Q* of MRA for diagnosing acetabular labral tears were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84–0.89), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.57–0.71), 2.23 (95% CI, 1.57–3.16), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16–0.27), 10.47 (95% CI, 7.09–15.48), 0.89, and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: MRI has high diagnostic efficacy for acetabular labral tears, and MRA has even higher diagnostic efficacy. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, the above results should be further validated.